Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Open Access Hittite and Hieroglyphic Luvian arha ‘away’: Common Inheritance or Borrowing?

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Hittite and Hieroglyphic Luvian arha ‘away’: Common Inheritance or Borrowing?

  • HTML
  • PDF
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Journal of Language Contact

Yakubovich (2010), in arguing convincingly that Hittite borrowed its enclitic reflexive particle from Luvian, emphasizes that this contact-induced change in the pronominal system was due not only to close and prolonged contact between speakers of the two languages, but also to the structural (in this case genetic) similarity of the respective systems (2010: 197ff.). Most discussion by Yakubovich and others has focused on Luvian influence on Hittite, prehistoric and in the Middle and New Hittite period. While a few lexical borrowings from Hittite into Luvian have been acknowledged, the question of Hittite-induced changes in Luvian grammatical morphemes has received little or no attention. I will argue that the likewise very similar systems of “local adverbs” and “preverbs” in the two languages led to a borrowing from Hittite into Luvian in this set of grammatical morphemes. While fine details assure a borrowing in this case, overall facts make borrowing far less likely in a second case to be considered. The very similarity of the respective systems makes it hard to determine whether the latter represents common inheritance or parallel independent developments possibly made more convergent by contact.

Affiliations: 1: University of California, Los Angeles, melchert@humnet.ucla.edu

Yakubovich (2010), in arguing convincingly that Hittite borrowed its enclitic reflexive particle from Luvian, emphasizes that this contact-induced change in the pronominal system was due not only to close and prolonged contact between speakers of the two languages, but also to the structural (in this case genetic) similarity of the respective systems (2010: 197ff.). Most discussion by Yakubovich and others has focused on Luvian influence on Hittite, prehistoric and in the Middle and New Hittite period. While a few lexical borrowings from Hittite into Luvian have been acknowledged, the question of Hittite-induced changes in Luvian grammatical morphemes has received little or no attention. I will argue that the likewise very similar systems of “local adverbs” and “preverbs” in the two languages led to a borrowing from Hittite into Luvian in this set of grammatical morphemes. While fine details assure a borrowing in this case, overall facts make borrowing far less likely in a second case to be considered. The very similarity of the respective systems makes it hard to determine whether the latter represents common inheritance or parallel independent developments possibly made more convergent by contact.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/19552629/6/2/19552629_006_02_S005_text.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1163/19552629-00602005&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah
/content/journals/10.1163/19552629-00602005
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/19552629-00602005
Loading
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/19552629-00602005
2013-01-01
2018-04-26

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation